Open access

Recent Developments and Applications of Microextraction Techniques for the Analysis of Pesticide Residues in Fruits and Vegetables

Written By

Guan Huat Tan and Lukman Bola Abdulra'uf

Submitted: December 21st, 2011 Published: August 1st, 2012

DOI: 10.5772/48745

Chapter metrics overview

3,753 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

1. Introduction

Analysis of pesticide residues and other contaminants in fruit and vegetable samples is becoming increasingly important due to the health hazards caused by their accumulation in human tissue. The body requires some important nutrients which can be provided by the consumption of fruits and vegetables. The purpose of any analytical study is to obtain information about substances and analytes present in the sample. Analytical process involves several steps: sampling, sample preparation, separation, quantification and data analysis [1]. Sample preparation is a very important step and indeed the bottleneck of analytical methodologies, in the analysis of fruits and vegetables for the presence of pesticide residues in fruit and vegetable samples [2].

The first step in any instrumental analysis is sample preparation, which involves the isolation or extraction of the desired analytes from the sample matrix, since they are present at trace concentration (usually µ or less). This helps in the elimination of any interferences and also reduces the volume of extracts, thereby concentrating the analytes [2]. The type, nature and composition of sample and the nature and concentration of analytes to be isolated or extracted determines the choice of separation and detection method to be used, and this also dictates the type of sample preparation to be employed [3, 4], since the efficiency of any analysis is determined by the sample preparation step. The current trend of microextraction techniques is aimed at a reliable and accurate analysis of contaminants from complex samples. It is focused on the reduction of sample and solvent volume, with the automation/coupling of the sampling step to the analytical instruments, while maintaining the high throughput performance, low cost operation and improvement of the sample preparation, such as extraction, concentration, isolation of analytes, and clean-up [5, 6].

The conventional solvent-based sample preparation methods: liquid-liquid extraction (LLE), solid phase extraction (SPE), accelerated solvent extraction (ASE), matrix solid phase dispersion (MSPD) [7-11], usually require various matrix pretreatment steps, which are tedious, time consuming, contains multistep techniques, require large volumes of sample and toxic solvents which impose environmental pollution and health hazards with high operation cost [5]. Therefore it is necessary to reduce the number of sample preparation steps in order to reduce the sources of error. Microextraction techniques are recently developed sample preparation methods which are vital as well as effective and efficient ways to save time, reduce solvent use and operation cost, and can efficiently measure the trace analytes embedded with high molecular mass compounds in complex sample matrices [12].

The microextraction techniques have been developed by different researchers, to corroborate the recent advances in the development of highly sensitive and efficient analytical instrumentation. Instrumental techniques like gas and liquid chromatography and capillary electrophoresis which are compatible with the microextraction technique, and coupled to different detectors (mass spectrometry, diode array detector, ultraviolet detector, etc), have been developed for qualitative and quantitative analysis of pesticide residues and other contaminants from foods. Prior sample preparation is necessary in order to extract, isolate and concentrate the analytes of interest from the complex fruits and vegetables matrices, which contain high molecular mass compounds. The low cost and ease of hyphenation of these microextraction techniques to analytical instruments helps to reduce errors, due to contamination and sample losses.

In this review, recent advances in different microextraction techniques used in the analysis of pesticide residues from fruit and vegetables are discussed, with a major focus on their methodologies, advantages, limitations and future trends.


2. Solid phase microextraction (SPME)

Solid phase microextraction, a solvent-free sample preparation technique, was developed by Pawliszyn and his co-workers in 1990 [13], and its applications has been examined, optimized and automated [14, 15]. It eliminates the need for solvents and combines sampling, isolation, concentration and enrichment in one step and offers the benefit of short sample preparation step, solvent-free extraction, small sample volumes and analyte concentration from solid, liquid or gaseous samples. It employs a chemically inert fused-silica optical fiber or metal alloys (Fiber SPME) coated on the outside with a thin film of sorbent [14] and a thin film internally coated fused silica capillary column (In-tube) [5, 16], as the extraction stationary phase, containing a polymeric organic compound. The fiber SPME has been widely used for the extraction of pesticide residues in fruits and vegetable samples, and will be discussed extensively in this review.

There are two major types of extraction modes used in the analysis of pesticides residues in fruit and vegetable samples. These are the headspace SPME (HS-SPME) and direct immersion SPME (DI-SPME). [5, 17-19]. The efficiency of each extraction mode is dependent on the sample matrix composition and the nature and volatility of the analytes. In the headspace sampling mode, the analyte is transported through a layer of gas before reaching the coating. The HS-SPME involves the exposure of the fiber to the vapour phase above a liquid or solid sample [5], where the analytes are extracted from the gas phase equilibrated with the sample matrix [20]. It could be effectively used for the extraction of analytes from complex liquid or solid samples [21]. This method helps to protect the coated fiber from the effects of any non-volatile high molecular weight compounds in the sample matrix, which binds irreversibly to the coating and often cause interference in the extraction process. In the DI-SPME, the coated fiber is completely inserted into the samples, where the transport of the analyte from the sample matrix into the extracting phase is achieved [22]. It is used for the extraction of gaseous or simple liquid samples.

The DI-SPME can also be applied for the extraction of analytes from complex samples, provided optimum dilution is achieved [18]. The HS-SPME is suitable for the extraction of volatile or semi-volatile and low-to medium-polar analytes, but the headspace volume should always be taken into consideration. The DI-SPME is used for the extraction of non-volatile analytes or analytes with low volatility and high-to-medium polar analytes [18, 21]. The advantage of HS-SPME over DI-SPME is the shorter equilibrium time, due to the higher diffusion coefficients in gaseous state, higher concentration of the analytes in the headspace prior to extraction and also allows for the variation of sample matrix properties without any effect on the fiber. Extraction mode is an important parameter which should be considered and optimized in the experimental design (described later) of SPME for a particular analyte under investigation.

There are two distinct steps in SPME; partitioning of the analytes between the extracting stationary phase and the sample matrix in DI-SPME mode and partitioning between fiber, headspace and sample matrix in the HS-SPME mode, followed by the desorption of concentrated extract [23], into analytical instruments, thermally when coupled to GC or with a mobile phase solvent when coupled to LC, and in the offline and online mode when combined with CE [12]. The technique is based on the partitioning of analyte and establishment of equilibrium between the analyte in the sample matrix and the stationary phase of the coated fused silica, which can either be liquid or solid particles suspended in a liquid polymer or a combination of both [14, 17, 24]. Recently, new SPME microextraction techniques have been developed, which make use of a microsyringe and is called in-needle SPME and with a pipette tip, known as in-tip SPME [12].

The experimental design of SPME for the analysis of pesticide residues from fruits and vegetables involves several steps and parameters which must be considered and optimized in order to achieve an efficient extraction. Parameters such as fiber type, extraction mode (described earlier), extraction and desorption time and temperature, separation and detection system, agitation method, ionic strength, sample pH, water and organic solvent content and method of calibration are considered and optimized based on the nature of analyte and constituent of sample matrix. Optimization of these parameters in the extraction of pesticide residues from food samples have also been reviewed in the literatures [5, 17, 22, 25, 26]. The first step in the development and optimization of an SPME method is the selection of fiber coating, since the efficiency of SPME technique is dependent on the fiber coating/sample matrix distribution constant [18], because the extraction process involves the diffusion of analyte from sample matrix to the fiber/headspace, through the interface between the fiber/headspace and sample matrix.

The commercial fibers are coated with different polymeric materials (single or mixed), which extract by either absorption or adsorption. Due to their relative low recommended operating temperature (200 – 300 OC) of the commercially available fiber, the recent trend is focused on the development of new fibers using sol-gel technology, with high thermal stability (>320 OC) [27-37] and molecular imprinted polymers (MIPs) [38-42]. Ionic liquids and sol-gel prepared ionic liquid coated fibers have also been recently developed and have been used extensively for the SPME extraction of pesticide residues in water samples [43-46], but their use for the extraction of analytes from food samples is a potential research area to be explored in the future.

The PDMS is the most commonly used SPME fiber coating in fruit and vegetable analysis. Although, it is suitable for the extraction of non-polar pesticides, it has also been widely used for the extraction of more polar pesticides, after the extraction conditions have been optimized. [5]. The mixed coating: PDMS/divinylbenzene (DVB), DVB/PDMS/carboxen (CAR), carbowax (CW)/PDMS, CW/DVB and CW/template resin (TPR) extract by adsorption and possess complementary properties of each constituent polymeric coating.

The fiber SPME has been used successfully for the analysis of pesticide residues from fruit and vegetable samples. The 65 µm PA fiber was employed for the extraction of 54 multiclass pesticides from orange and peach in the DI mode [47]. The fiber coating was used for the extraction of phenyl urea pesticides from carrot, onion and potato in the DI mode [48], organophosphorus pesticides from orange, grape and lemon juice in the DI mode [49], triazole in strawberry in the DI mode [50], 14 multiclass pesticides from mango in the DI mode [51], while 80 µm PA fiber was used for the extraction of strobilurin fungicides from grape, ketchup, strawberry and tomato in the HS mode [52]. The 100 µm PDMS was used by Chai et al for the extraction of multiresidue organochlorine and organophosphorus pesticides from cabbage, tomato and guava in HS mode [53] and from strawberry, guava, pak-choi, tomato, star fruit and cucumber in HS mode [15, 54]. Organochlorine, organophosphorus and carbamate pesticides from tomato and cucumber in DI mode [55] has been employed. Organophosphorus pesticides was extracted from pear and apple in DI mode [56], strawberry, cherry and cherry juice in HS mode [57, 58], C. coronaium plant in DI mode [59] and 13 different vegetables in HS mode [60] using 100 µm PDMS. Multiclass pesticides were also extracted from tomato in the DI mode with 100 µm PDMS (Guillet [61].

A pre-extraction method, involving the use of matrix-assisted extraction followed by SPME extraction using the 100 µm PDMS was developed. The method was used for the extraction of organophosphorous pesticides from strawberry, tomato and pakchoi in the HS mode [62] and extraction of pyrethroid pesticides from strawberry in the DI mode [63]. The 100 µm PDMS gave better extraction efficiency, good linear range, lower detection limit and good recovery with relative standard deviation lower than 10%.

The most widely used mixed phase fiber for fruits and vegetables analysis is the 65 µm PDMS/DVB fiber. It was employed in the extraction of pyrethroid pesticides from tomato and strawberry [64], and 70 multiclass pesticides from cucumber, pepper and tomato [65]. The 60 µm PDMS/DVB fiber was employed for the extraction of 25 multiclass pesticides from tomato [61], carbamate pesticides from strawberry [66] and apple [67] and pyrethroid pesticides from cucumber and water melon and 7 multiclass pesticides from tomato [68], the 65 µm PDMS/DVB coupled to multi-dimensional GC/MS was recently used for the analysis of multiclass pesticides in peach, orange and pineapple juices [69]. The less frequently used fibers in the extraction of pesticides from fruit and vegetable samples include the 65 µm CW/DVB, used for the extraction of carbamate pesticides from apple and grape juice [70], the 50 µm CW/TPR used for the extraction of postharvest fungicides from cherry, orange and peach [71], and multiclass pesticides in lettuce [72] and activated carbon/polyvinylchloride (AC/PVC) used for the extraction of organophosphorus pesticides from grape [73]. The extractions gave good repeatability and reproducibility with better efficiency than the single phase coated fibers.


3. Liquid phase microextraction (LPME) also called Solvent Microextraction (SME)

This is also a newly developed microextraction technique, which drastically reduces the quantity of solvent used for extraction [74]. It is rapid and less expensive, and is performed between a small amount of water-immiscible solvent called the acceptor phase, and an aqueous phase (donor phase) containing the analytes of interest [75]. The acceptor phase can either be immersed directly in the sample matrix or suspended above the sample for headspace extraction [12]. The volume of the receiving phase is in microliter (droplet of organic solvent). It is also known as liquid-liquid microextraction (LLME) and can be divided into three major categories and their difference is the way the extraction solvent comes in contact with the sample matrix.

  1. Single Drop Microextraction (SDME)

  2. Hollow Fiber Liquid Phase Microextraction (HF-LPME)

  3. Dispersive Liquid Liquid Microextraction (DLLME)

The development of the methods for the analysis of pesticides by the LPME technique as in SPME, requires the optimization of the parameters related to the donor and acceptor phases. The first and the most important is the selection of an organic solvent which is of high purity, less volatile, high boiling point, so as to prevent solvent evaporation and ensure analyte concentration. The solvents should also be water immiscible for extraction of analytes from an aqueous sample. The SDME extraction like SPME is a non-exhaustive extraction method, thus an appropriate drop volume must be selected to prevent shrinking, and volumes are usually between 0.9 and 1.6 µL. Although, the use of a large volume of solvent drop yields better instrumental response and improve extraction efficiency, they are difficult to manipulate and could be easily dislodged from the syringe. Agitation increases the extraction efficiency, by decreasing the extraction time. It also leads to an increase in aqueous mass transfer and exposes the analytes to the extraction solvent, and should be optimized to avoid the dislodgment of the solvent drop.

Salt addition enhances extraction efficiency by reducing the solubility of the analytes in the sample, especially for the moderately polar and low molecular weight analytes. The optimization of extraction temperature is important especially in the headspace mode, but a higher temperature may affect the stability of the microdrop, and for this reason most of the reported analyses have been carried out by DI- mode at room temperature. The sample and headspace volume should be maintained constantly at minimal level, since larger sample volumes will require longer extraction time and affect the stability of the microdrop. In the headspace mode, the optimized volume should be at a level which allows the microdrop to be suspended over the stirred sample, while in the direct immersion mode, the sample volume should only be enough to avoid the sample coming in contact with the septum [3, 76, 77]. The presence of air bubbles should also be avoided in the syringe to avoid errors in the analysis.

3.1. Single drop microextraction (SDME)

SDME is a microextraction technique, which is based on the suspension of a single droplet of water-immiscible organic solvents (typically 0.5–3 µL) from the tip of a microsyringe needle in an aqueous solution [12, 75], thus drastically reducing the volume of organic solvents used. The analytes are distributed between the microdrop of the solvent at the tip of the syringe and the sample solution [78]. The analyte which is extracted by passive diffusion onto the droplet is retracted back into the syringe and injected directly into the analytical instruments (GC, HPLC or CE). The evaporation and reconstitution of analytes before injection is eliminated and the technique provides highly enriched extracts of the analytes [12].

The SDME extraction can be carried out in direct immersion (in which the droplet is suspended directly into the aqueous sample), and is most suitable for the analysis of medium polar or non-polar analytes or headspace mode (where the droplet is suspended in the headspace of the sample solution) and is suitable for the analysis of volatile or semi-volatile analytes. The technique was first reported by Liu and Dasgupta, using a 1.3 µL chloroform suspended in a large aqueous solution containing a methylene blue active substance [79], and later by Jeannot and Cantwell for the extraction of 4-methyacetophenone in aqueous solution, using 8 µL of n-octane suspended at the end of a Teflon rod [80]. The extraction technique was found to be simple, flexible and can easily be coupled to chromatographic instruments. Its coupling with GC and HPLC has been reported and reviewed extensively, while it has also been successfully coupled with ICP-MS, ET-AAS, FI-AAS, MALDI-MS, CE and MS [3, 81]

The use of a Teflon rod as a microdrop holder implies that extraction from the sample and injection of analytes into chromatographic instruments are performed separately with different apparatus [75, 82]. This limitation was overcome by the introduction of a microsyringe as the microdrop holder [83], and the organic solvent can be withdrawn after extraction and injected directly into the GC system [81]. Another limitation is the instability of the microdrop of solvent in the DI-mode at high stirring rate and long extraction times [3]. Therefore, in the development of SDME technique, there is need for the optimization of factors such as selection of extraction solvent, solvent drop volume, agitation rate, ionic strength, extraction temperature and time, sample and headspace volume and automation [76].

Few studies have been published regarding its application for the extraction of pesticide residues from fruit and vegetable samples. The techniques was used for the analysis of 20 multiclass pesticides in apple [84], and in tomato, using toluene [85, 86], analysis of triazole pesticides in water and grape juice samples, with extraction by n-hexanol/n-hexane (50:50,v/v%) [87]. The presence of organochlorine pesticides was also investigated in vegetable samples (cabbage, cauliflower and Chinese cabbage) using SDME-GC/MS using a mixture of 1 µL p-xylene/acetone (80:20, v/v %) [88] and organophosphorus pesticides in fruit juices. [89], and in apple, pear and orange juice samples [90], using toluene as the extraction solvents. Organophophorus and organochlorine pesticides were also determined in cucumber and strawberry using toluene (1.5 µL) [91], while a mixture of octanone and undecanone was used for the extraction of oxazole fungicides from fruits samples [92]. The choice of toluene by most authors was based on the fact that it is stable, less toxic, possesses a higher extraction efficiency and its suitability for direct GC injection. All the developed methods gave comparable analytical figures of merit compared to SPME.

3.2. Hollow fiber liquid phase microextraction (HF-LPME)

HF-LPME is a multi-phased microextraction system, which was developed to enhance the stability of the organic solvent in 1999 [93, 94]. It is based on the principle of a supported liquid membrane [95], in which the organic solvent is used to fill both the wall pores and the HF lumen. It makes use of a polymeric membrane which forms a barrier between the solvent and the sample [96], and acts as a support for the small volumes of extracting solvents. It involves filling of a few microliters of solvent inside the pores and lumen of a semi-permeable polypropylene hollow fiber attached to a syringe. The HF-LPME can be carried out in either the static or dynamic mode. In the static mode, the acceptor phase is introduced in the lumen followed by the immersion of the fiber into the aqueous sample by a syringe, while in the dynamic mode the HF is attached to a syringe connected to programmable pump [75, 78].

The extraction can be carried out in two- or three phases [95]. In the two-phase mode, the aqueous sample (donor) makes contact directly with the organic solvents (acceptor) through the membrane pores, by a repeated pushing and pulling of the microsyringe plunger [97], and the mass transfer of the analytes is driven by the diffusion of the analytes from the sample matrix into the organic solvent. When the pores are prefilled with an organic solvent, which provides a supported liquid membrane, a three-phase system is formed, and the sample solution and organic solvent are separated by the hollow fiber membrane. The solvent used must be compatible with the membrane, so as to ensure that the pores in the wall of the membrane is completely filled [75]. The technique can also be carried out in the headspace mode, but most researchers have used the direct immersion mode for efficient pre-concentration of the analytes. The limitation of this technique is the issue of carry-over [98], therefore a new membrane should be used for each extraction.

The HF-LPME membranes are capable of accommodating larger volumes of organic solvents which increases the efficiency of the extraction, while the pore acts as a filter which prevents interference of large molecular weight molecules present in the sample matrix. The technique has not been used extensively for pesticides analysis in food samples, therefore only a few studies have been reported for its applications in fruit and vegetable samples. It has been used for extraction of pesticide residues in vegetables using dihexyl ether [99], triazines in watermelon using toluene immobilized on MIP-HF [100], fungicides from orange juice using 2-octanone [101], organochlorine pesticides from tomato and strawberry using a mixture of toluene and hexane [102] and pesticides from grapes with pressurized hot water [103]. The choice of the water-immiscible solvents was based on their ease of immobilization into the HF, with low volatility and high partition coefficients.

3.3. Dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME)

DLLME is a microextraction technique introduced by Assadi and co-workers [104] which also makes use of microliter volume of a mixture of extraction solvent and dispersive solvent. This helps to minimize dislodgement of the organic solvent drop inherent in SDME. It involves the formation of a cloudy solution when an appropriate mixture of high density water-immiscible extraction solvent and dispersive solvents is injected rapidly into an aqueous solution [104, 105], containing the analytes of interest. The hydrophobic solutes are then enriched in the extraction solvents, which are dispersed into the bulk aqueous solution and the mixture is centrifuged, thus, making DLLME a two-step extraction technique. The extractive solvent accumulates at the bottom of the extraction vessel and can be injected with or without further treatment into analytical instruments. The choice of the type and volume of dispersive solvent is as important as that of the extraction solvent, because, it helps the extraction solvent to form fine droplets in the sample matrices. The nature of the fine droplet has been found to enhance extraction efficiency, because of the abundant surface contact between the droplet and the analytes, thus the mass transfer of analytes into the extraction solvent is speeded up [75].

The use of DLLME has also been extended to the analysis of pesticide residues in fruit and vegetable samples which resulted in efficient extraction, high enrichment factors and low detection limits. The technique was used for the analysis of multi-residue pesticides in peach juice, pulps and peels using dodecan-1-ol (4 µL) and acetone (4 µL) as the extraction and dispersive solvents respectively, and the extraction was based on floating organic solvent [106]. Organophophorus pesticides were analyzed in orange juice samples using chlorobenzene (50 µL) and ultrasound assisted emulsification [107], also in banana using an ionic liquid ([BBIm][PF6]) based extraction solvent and methanol (600 µL) [108], in tomato with ultrasound assisted solvent extraction followed by DLLME with chlorobenzene (10 – 11 µL) as an extraction solvent with acetone (1 ml) as the dispersive solvent [109], and in water melon using chlorobenzene (27 µL) and acetonitrile (2.5 ml). Carbamate pesticides were also analyzed in banana, pineapple and tomato juice using trichloromethane (800 µL) and methanol (1.5 ml) [110] and in apple using trichloromethane (60 µL) and acetone (1 ml) [111].

Neonicotinoid insecticides was also analyzed in apple using chlorobenzene (9 µL) and acetone (1 ml) [112], and in tomato and cucumber using tricholoromethane (200 µL) and acetonitrile (2.5 ml) [113]. Multiclass pesticides were determined in banana [114], table grape and plum [115], using ionic liquid ([C6MIm][PF6]) based extraction solvent and methanol (714 µL) and in apple juice using tetrachloromethane (100 µL) and acetone (500 µL). It was also used for the analysis of triazophus and carbaryl from apple, grape and peach [116], fungicides from pear, grape and strawberry [117], imidacloprid from toamato [118], using tetrachloroethane and acetonitrile, cypermethrin and permethrin from pear juice using tetrachloroethene and methanol, diethofencarb and pyrimethanil from apple pulp and peel using 1-undecanol and acetonitrile as the extraction and dispersion solvents respectively. The technique was also found to yield a better enrichment factor and low detection limit.


4. Stir bar sorptive extraction (SBSE)

SBSE is also a microextraction technique similar to SPME but with a greater extraction capacity. It helps to overcome the small volume of the coated SPME fiber for a better enrichment factor. In the SBSE technique, a 10 to 40 mm long magnetic stir bar coated with 50 – 300 µL of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) is used as the extracting phase [12]. The extraction mechanisms are similar to those of SPME, but the enrichment factor, which is determined by the amount of extractive phase is higher. The analytes are adsorbed on a PDMS coated magnetic rod, by stirring the sample solution with the rod for a given time. The stir bar can then be thermally desorbed into GC or by organic solvent to be subsequently injected to an LC system [119, 120]. The limitation of this technique include the need for reconstitution in a solvent before chromatographic analysis, since the stir bar fiber cannot be directly injected into the split/splitless injection port of a GC [96, 120]. The tedious reconstitution step can lead to introduction of contaminants and loss of analyte. It also involves longer desorption time, due to the higher amount of stir bar coating.

The extraction process like SPME is dependent on the partition coefficients between the analyte and the coated stir bar. The PDME coated fiber is commercially available, and has widely been used, while other polymeric phases such as restricted access materials, sol-gel prepared coatings and carbon adsorbents have also been recently developed. In the SBSE method development, factors such as extraction time and temperature, pH, salt and organic solvent addition, sample volume, agitation speed and volume of acceptor phase are very important and need to be optimized [96, 120] for higher extraction efficiency, recovery and low detection limit. The technique has successfully been applied for the extraction of pesticides residues in fruit and vegetable samples. An organophosphorus pesticide (OPP) was analyzed in cucumber and potato using sol-gel coating stir bar [121]. It has also been used for the extraction of multiclass pesticides in different fruits and vegetable samples [122-124], using PDMS coated stir bar, organochlorine and organophosphorus in grape and peach juice using poly(phthalazine ether sulfone ketone) coated stir bar [125]. A method which compared SBSE and matrix solid phase dispersion was developed for the determination of multiclass pesticides in orange using PDMS coated stir bar [126].


5. Microextraction in packed solvents (MEPS)

MEPS is a recently developed microextraction technique. It is a miniaturization of conventional SPE packed bed devices from milliliter bed volume to microliter volumes, and uses the same sorbent bed integrated into a liquid handling syringe that allows for low void volume sample manipulation [127]. It can be connected online with GC or LC without any modifications, and can be fully automated [128]. The sorbent (1-2 mg) is either inserted into the syringe (100-200 µL) barrel as a plug or between the needle and the barrel as a cartridge [127, 129]. The cartridge bed can be packed or coated to provide selective and suitable sampling conditions and make use of silica based (C2, C8 C18) and strong cation exchanger (SCX), polystyrene-divinylbenzene copolymer or molecular imprinted polymer, as the extracting phase [127, 130].

The extraction technique which can be performed on-line with GC or LC involves dilution of the sample followed by drawing the sample up and down through a conditioned sorbent solid phase plug in the syringe. The solid phase is washed with water or with other solvents in the case of water soluble analytes, to remove any interfering materials and the analytes are eluted with a microliter volume of organic solvent. The technique was recently used for the analysis of multiclass pesticides in water samples [131, 132], but till today it has not been used for fruits and vegetables analysis. It presents a good and promising microextraction technique for the analysis of a broad range of pesticides in food samples. It also requires the optimization of factors such as the nature of adsorbent, nature and volume of elution solvent, nature and volume of washing solution and number of extraction cycles [127, 128, 130], to achieve an efficient extraction for better sensitivity and low detection limits.


6. Interface to analytical instrumentation

The automation of the microextraction techniques described in this review has gone a long way in increasing the efficiency and accuracy of the extraction procedures and subsequent instrumental analysis, by preventing loss of sample and introduction of other contaminants. All the techniques except SBSE have been conveniently interfaced to chromatographic analytical instruments. At present SPME offers the best technique because of its solvent-less nature, since other microextraction techniques make use of water-immiscible solvents, and the GC technique is the most preferred analytical instrument and has been used in most of the published work in microextraction analysis. The techniques have also been successfully interfaced with HPLC and CE, but only a few papers have been reported [81, 94]. The GC analysis provides higher sensitivity, selectivity and better detection limits than LC in pesticide analysis, while the CE provides a faster alternative to the chromatographic techniques but with higher detection limit [77]


7. Limitations and future trends

The use of microextraction technique is emerging as a very reliable sample preparation method, while employing little or no solvent. The advantages over the traditional method include their simplicity of operation, rapid sampling, low cost, high recovery and enrichment factor and being environment-friendly. The major limitations of these techniques include low recommended operating temperature, low volume of fiber coatings, fiber breakage and stripping of coatings in SPME, low volume of microdrop solvent, instability of the solvent, possible loss of organic solvent in SDME, the presence of porous membrane, use of a large amount of solvent for analyte elution in HF-LPME, difficulty of the automation, use of large volume of dispersive solvent and solvent dissolution in DLLME. In SBSE, the major limitations include the need to rinse, dry and reconstitute the analyte, while in MEPS, limitations include, carry-over of analytes, low enrichment factor and the presence of small amounts of water residue on the packed sorbents. The use of more selective, efficient and versatile extraction procedure and increasing interest in overcoming the aforementioned limitations and trend towards automation will provide better integration of sampling and instrumental analysis which can be used for a wide range of analytes. The limitations can also be reduced by careful optimization of all the required parameters. The use of nanoparticles as the fiber coating (SPME and SBSE)), microdrop solvents (LPME) and packed sorbent (MEPS) is a fast growing area of microextraction technique which is yet to be fully explored.


8. Conclusion

The miniaturization of sampling procedure and the need to reduce sampling time and solvent volume has led to the development of various microextraction techniques. The introduction of ionic liquid based and sol-gel prepared ionic liquid extraction phase, which can be used for all the microextraction techniques will provide a better enrichment factor, higher recovery, low detection limit and higher extraction throughput due to their unique properties such as negligible vapour pressure, good thermal stability, and high viscosity. SPME remains the most widely used technique, especially with the introduction of ionic liquid based, molecular imprinted and sol–gel prepared fiber coatings and introduction of the metal alloy fiber. However, the microextraction technique is an emerging field of study which will provide inexpensive and solvent-less analysis of a wide range of pesticide residues and other contaminants in food samples.



The authors are grateful to the University of Malaya, for supporting this research work with a IPPP Research Grant No: PV009/2011A and RG025-09AFR.


  1. 1. PawliszynJ.PawliszynB.PawliszynM.1997Solid Phase Microextarction (SPME). The Chem. Educ. 217
  2. 2. NerınC.SalafrancaJ.AznarM.BatlleR.2009Critical Review on Recent Developments in Solventless Techniques for Extraction of Analytes. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 393809833
  3. 3. JainA.VermaK. K.2011Recent Advances in Applications of Single-Drop Microextraction: A Review. Anal. Chim. Acta 7063765
  4. 4. KloskowskiA.ChrzanowskiW.PilarczykM.NamiesnikJ.2007Modern Techniques of Sample Preparation for Determination of Organic Analytes by Gas Chromatography. Crit. Rev. Anal. Chem. 371538
  5. 5. KataokaH.LordH. L.PawliszynJ.2000Applications of Solid-Phase Microextraction in Food Analysis. J. Chromatogr. A 8803562
  6. 6. BeltranJ.LopezF. J.HernandezF.2000Solid-Phase Microextraction in Pesticide Residue Analysis. J. Chromatogr. A 885389404
  7. 7. De KoningS.Janssen-GH.ThBrinkman. U. A.2009Modern Methods of Sample Preparation for GC Analysis. Chromatographia 69: S33S78.
  8. 8. Ahmed FE2001Analyses of Pesticides and Their Metabolites in Foods and Drinks. TrAC, Trends Anal. Chem. 20649661
  9. 9. Otero RR, Grande BC, Gandara JS2003Multiresidue Method for Fourteen Fungicides in White Grapes by Liquid-Liquid and Solid-Phase Extraction Followed by Liquid Chromatography-Diode Array Detection. J. Chromatogr. A 992121
  10. 10. AlberoB.Sánchez-BruneteC.TadeoJ. L.2005Multiresidue Determination of Pesticides in Juice by Solid-Phase Extraction and Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry. Talanta 66917924
  11. 11. Tan GH, Chai MK2011Sample Preparation in the Analysis of Pesticides Residue in Food for Chromatographic Techniques. In: Stoytcheva M, editor. Pesticides- Strategies for Pesticides Analysis. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech. 2859
  12. 12. KataokaH.2010Recent Developments and Applications of Microextraction Techniques in Drug Analysis. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 396339364
  13. 13. ArthurC. L.PawliszynJ.1990Solid Phase Microextraction with Thermal Desorption Using Fused Silica Optical Fibers. Anal. Chem. 6221452148
  14. 14. ArthurC. L.KillamL. M.BuchholzK. D.PawliszynJ.BergJ. R.1992Automation and Optimization of Solid-Phase Microextraction. Anal. Chem. 6419601966
  15. 15. Chai MK, Tan GH2009Validation of a Headspace Solid-Phase Microextraction Procedure with Gas Chromatography-Electron Capture Detection of Pesticide Residues in Fruits and Vegetables. Food Chem. 117561567
  16. 16. EisertR.PawliszynJ.1997Automated in-Tube Solid-Phase Microextraction Coupled to High-Performance Liquid Chromatography. Anal. Chem. 6931403147
  17. 17. AulakhJ. S.MalikA. K.KaurV.Schmitt-KopplinP.2005A Review on Solid Phase Micro Extraction-High Performance Liquid Chromatography (SPME-HPLC) Analysis of Pesticides. Crit. Rev. Anal. Chem. 357185
  18. 18. RisticevicS.LordH.GóreckiT.ArthurC. L.PawliszynJ.2010Protocol for Solid-Phase Microextraction Method Development. Nat. Protoc. 5122139
  19. 19. Abdulra’uf LB, Hammed WA, Tan GH2012SPME Fibers for the Analysis of Pesticide Residues in Fruits and Vegetables: A Review. Crit. Rev. Anal. Chem. 42152161
  20. 20. PawliszynJ.1997Solid Phase Microextraction: Theory and Practice: VCH, New York.
  21. 21. KudlejovaL.RisticevicS.VuckovicD.2012Solid-Phase Microextraction Method Development. In: Pawliszyn J, editor. Handbook of Solid Phase Microextraction. Waltham, USA: Elsevier.
  22. 22. LordH.PawliszynJ.2000Evolution of Solid-Phase Microextraction Technology. J. Chromatogr. A 885153193
  23. 23. RisticevicS.NiriV. H.VuckovicD.PawliszynJ.2009Recent Developments in Solid-Phase Microextraction. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 393781795
  24. 24. Lambropoulou DA, Albanis TA2007Methods of Sample Preparation for Determination of Pesticide Residues in Food Matrices by Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry-Based Techniques: A Review. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 38916631683
  25. 25. WardenckiW.MichulecM.CuryłoJ.2004A Review of Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Solid-Phase Microextraction in Food Analysis. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 39703717
  26. 26. ProsenH.Zupancic-KraljL.1999Solid-Phase Microextraction. TrAC, Trends Anal. Chem. 18272282
  27. 27. KumarA.GauravMalik. A. K.TewaryD. K.SinghB.2008A Review on Development of Solid Phase Microextraction Fibers by Sol-Gel Methods and their Applications. Anal. Chim. Acta 610114
  28. 28. CaiL.GongS.ChenM.WuC.2006Vinyl Crown Ether as a Novel Radical Crosslinked Sol-Gel SPME Fiber for Determination of Organophosphorus Pesticides in Food Samples. Anal. Chim. Acta 5598996
  29. 29. CaiL.XingJ.DongL.WuC.2003Application of Polyphenylmethylsiloxane Coated Fiber for Solid-Phase Microextraction Combined with Microwave-Assisted Extraction for the Determination of Organochlorine Pesticides in Chinese Teas. J. Chromatogr. A 10151121
  30. 30. DongC.ZengZ.LiX.2005Determination of Organochlorine Pesticides and Their Metabolites in Radish after Headspace Solid-Phase Microextraction Using Calix[4]Arene Fiber. Talanta 66721727
  31. 31. ChaiX.JiaJ.SunT.WangY.2008Suitability of a Novel Circulating Cooling SPME for Analysis of Organophosphorous Pesticides in Tomatoes. Chromatographia 67309313
  32. 32. YuJ.WuC.XingJ.2004Development of New Solid-Phase Microextraction Fibers by Sol-Gel Technology for the Determination of Organophosphorus Pesticide Multiresidues in Food. J. Chromatogr. A 1036101111
  33. 33. ZengJ.ChenJ.LinZ.ChenW.ChenX.WangX.2008Development of Polymethylphenylsiloxane-Coated Fiber for Solid-Phase Microextraction and Its Analytical Application of Qualitative and Semi-Quantitative of Organochlorine and Pyrethroid Pesticides in Vegetables. Anal. Chim. Acta 6195966
  34. 34. ZengZ.QiuW.HuangZ.2001Solid-Phase Microextraction Using Fused-Silica Fibers Coated with Sol−Gel-Derived Hydroxy-Crown Ether. Anal. Chem. 7324292436
  35. 35. DietzC.SanzJ.CámaraC.2006Recent Developments in Solid-Phase Microextraction Coatings and Related Techniques. J. Chromatogr. A 1103183192
  36. 36. ChongS. L.WangD.JDHayesWilhite. B. W.MalikA.1997Sol−Gel Coating Technology for the Preparation of Solid-Phase Microextraction Fibers of Enhanced Thermal Stability. Anal. Chem. 6938893898
  37. 37. WanIbrahim. W. A.FarhaniH.MMSanagi-EneinAboul.H. Y.2010Solid Phase Microextraction Using New Sol-Gel Hybrid Polydimethylsiloxane-2-Hydroxymethyl-18-Crown-6-Coated Fiber for Determination of Organophosphorous Pesticides. J. Chromatogr. A 121748904897
  38. 38. HuX.HuY.LiG.2007Development of Novel Molecularly Imprinted Solid-Phase Microextraction Fiber and Its Application for the Determination of Triazines in Complicated Samples Coupled with High-Performance Liquid Chromatography. J. Chromatogr. A 114719
  39. 39. DjozanD.EbrahimiB.2008Preparation of New Solid Phase Micro Extraction Fiber on the Basis of Atrazine-Molecular Imprinted Polymer: Application for GC and GC/MS Screening of Triazine Herbicides in Water, Rice and Onion. Anal. Chim. Acta 616152159
  40. 40. DjozanD.MahkamM.EbrahimiB.2009Preparation and Binding Study of Solid-Phase Microextraction Fiber on the Basis of Ametryn-Imprinted Polymer Application to the Selective Extraction of Persistent Triazine Herbicides in Tap Water, Rice, Maize and Onion J. Chromatogr. A 121622112219
  41. 41. DjozanD.MahkamM.EbrahimiB.MAFarajzadeh2010Evaluation of a New Method for Chemical Coating of Aluminum Wire with Molecularly Imprinted Polymer Layer. Application for the Fabrication of Triazines Selective Solid-Phase Microextraction Fiber. Anal. Chim. Acta 6744048
  42. 42. TurielE.TadeoJ. L.Martin-EstebanA.2007Molecularly Imprinted Polymeric Fibers for Solid-Phase Microextraction Anal. Chem. 07930993104
  43. 43. WanigasekaraE.PereraS.CrankJ. al.2010Bonded Ionic Liquid Polymeric Material for Solid-Phase Microextraction GC Analysis. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 396511524
  44. 44. al.2011Preparation and Characterization of Novel Crown Ether Functionalized Ionic Liquid-Based Solid-Phase Microextraction Coatings by Sol-Gel Technology. Journal of Chromatography A 121835713580
  45. 45. Ho TD, Canestraro AJ, Anderson JL2011Ionic Liquids in Solid-Phase Microextraction: A Review. Anal. Chim. Acta 6951843
  46. 46. EbrahimiM.Es’haghiZ.SamadiF.MSHosseini2011Ionic Liquid Mediated Sol-Gel Sorbents for Hollow Fiber Solid-Phase Microextraction of Pesticide Residues in Water and Hair Samples. J. Chromatogr. A 121883138321
  47. 47. Cortés-AguadoS.Sánchez-MoritoN.ArrebolaF. J.GrenidoFrenich. A.VidalJ. L. M.2008Fast Screening of Pesticide Residues in Fruit Juice by Solid-Phase Microextraction and Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry. Food Chem. 10713141325
  48. 48. BerradaH.FontG.MoltóJ. C.2004Application of Solid-Phase Microextraction for Determining Phenylurea Herbicides and Their Homologous Anilines from Vegetables. J. Chromatogr. A 1042914
  49. 49. ZamboninC. G.QuintoM.VietroN. D.PalmisanoF.2004Solid-Phase Microextraction- Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry: A Fast and Simple Screening Method for the Assessment of Organophosphorus Pesticides Residues in Wine and Fruit Juices. Food Chem. 86269274
  50. 50. ZamboninC. G.CilentiA.PalmisanoF.2002Solid-Phase Microextraction and Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry for the Rapid Screening of Triazole Residues in Wine and Strawberries. J. Chromatogr. A 967255260
  51. 51. MenezesFilho. A.dosSantos. F. PaulaPereira. P. A.2010Development, Validation and Application of a Methodology Based on Solid-Phase Micro Extraction Followed by Gas Chromatography Coupled to Mass Spectrometry (SPME/GC-MS) for the Determination of Pesticide Residues in Mangoes. Talanta 81346354
  52. 52. NavalonA.PrietoA.AraujoL.VılchezJ. L.2002Determination of Pyrimethanil and Kresoxim-Methyl in Green Groceries by Headspace Solid-Phase Microextraction and Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A 975355360
  53. 53. ChaiM. K.TanG. H.AshaI.2008Optimization of Headspace Solid-Phase Microextraction for the Determination of Pesticide Residues in Vegetables and Fruits. Anal. Sci. 24273276
  54. 54. ChaiM. K.TanG. H.AshaK.2006Method Development for the Determination of Pesticide Residues in Vegetables and Fruits by Using Solid-Phase Microextraction. Malay. J. Chem. 8067071
  55. 55. ChaiM. K.TanG. H.AshaK.2008Application of Solid-Phase Microextraction for the Determination of Pesticides in Vegetable Samples by Gas Chromatography with an Electron Capture Detector. Malay. J. Anal Sci. 1219
  56. 56. Simplicio AL, Boas LV1999Validation of a Solid-Phase Microextraction Method for the Determination of Organophohporus Pesticides in Fruits and Fruit Juices. J. Chromatogr. A 8833242
  57. 57. Lambropoulou DA, Albanis TA2002Headspace Solid Phase Microextraction Applied to the Analysis of Organophosphorus Insecticides in Strawberry and Cherry Juices. J. Agric. Food Chem. 5033593365
  58. 58. Lambropoulou DA, Albanis TA2003Headspace Solid-Phase Microextraction in Combination with Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry for the Rapid Screening of Organophosphorus Insecticide Residues in Strawberries and Cherries. J. Chromatogr. A 993197
  59. 59. ChenW.Poon-FK.LamM. H. W.1998The Application of Solid Phase Microextraction in the Analysis of Organophosphorus Pesticides in a Food Plant. Environ. Sci. Technol. 3238163820
  60. 60. FytianosK.DrimaropoulouG.RaikosN.TheodoridisG.TsoukaliH.2007Headspace Solid-Phase Microextraction for the Gas Chromatographic Analysis of Organophosphorus Insecticides in Vegetables. J. AOAC Int. 9016771682
  61. 61. GuilletV.FaveC.MonturyM.2009Microwave/Spme Method to Quantify Pesticide Residues in Tomato Fruits. J. Environ. Sci. Health, Part B 44415422
  62. 62. Chen Y-I, Su Y-S, Jen J-F2002Determination of Dichlorvos by on-Line Microwave-Assisted Extraction Coupled to Headspace Solid-Phase Microextraction and Gas Chromatography-Electron-Capture Detection J. Chromatogr. A 976349355
  63. 63. SanusiA.GuilletV.MonturyM.2004Advanced Method Using Microwaves and Solid-Phase Microextraction Coupled with Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry for the Determination of Pyrethroid Residues in Strawberries. J. Chromatogr. A 10463540
  64. 64. BeltranJ.PerugaA.PitarchE.LopezF. J.2003Application of Solid-Phase Microextraction for the Determination of Pyrethroid Residues in Vegetable Samples by Gc-Ms. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 376502511
  65. 65. Cortes-AguadoS.Sanchez-MoritoN.GrenidoFrenich. A.VidalJ. L. M.ArrebolaL. F. J.2007Screening Method for the Determination at Parts Per Trillion Levels of Pesticide Residues in Vegetables Combining Solid-Phase Microextraction and Gas Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry. Anal. Lett. 4028862914
  66. 66. WangZ.HennionB.UrrutyL.MonturyM.2000Solid-Phase Microextraction Coupled with High Performance Liquid Chromatography: A Complementary Technique to Solid Phase Microextraction-Gas Chromatography for the Analysis of Pesticide Residues in Strawberries. Food Addit. Contam. 17915923
  67. 67. HuY.YangX.WangC.ZhaoJ.LiW.WangZ.2008A Sensitive Determination Method for Carbendazim and Thiabendazole in Apples by Solid-Phase Microextraction High Performance Liquid Chromatography with Fluorescence Detection. Food Addit. Contam. 25314319
  68. 68. Ravelo-PerezL. M.Hernandez-BorgesJ.Borges-MiquelT. M.MARodrıguez-Delgado2008Pesticide Analysis in Tomatoes by Solid-Phase Microextraction and Micellar Electrokinetic Chromatography J. Chromatogr. A 1185151154
  69. 69. del CastilloM. L. la PeñaMoreno. F.BlanchG. P.2012Evaluation of Pesticide Residue Contents in Fruit Juice by Solid-Phase Microextraction and Multidimensional Gas Chromatography Coupled with Mass Spectrometry. Talanta 897783
  70. 70. NatangeloM.TavazziS.BenfenatiE.2002Evaluation of Solid Phase Microextraction-Gas Chromatography in the Analysis of Some Pesticides with Different Mass Spectrometric Techniques: Application to Environmental Waters and Food Samples. Anal. Lett 35327338
  71. 71. BlascoC.FontG.ManesJ.PicoY.2003Solid-Phase Microextraction Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry to Determine Postharvest Fungicides in Fruits. Anal. Chem. 7536063615
  72. 72. MeloA.AguiarA.MansilhaC.PinhoO.FerreiraI. M. P. L. V. O.2012Optimisation of a Solid-Phase Microextraction/Hplc/Diode Array Method for Multiple Pesticide Screening in Lettuce. Food Chem. 13010901097
  73. 73. MAFarajzadehHatami. M.2004Solid-Phase Microextraction Gas Chromatography for Determination of Some Organophosphorus Pesticides Chromatographia 59259262
  74. 74. Theis AL, Waldack AJ, Hansen SM, Jeannot MA2001Headspace Solvent Microextraction. Anal. Chem. 7356515654
  75. 75. Sarafraz-YazdiA.AmiriA.2010Liquid-Phase Microextraction. TrAC, Trends Anal. Chem. 29114
  76. 76. MAJeannotPrzyjazny. A.KokosaJ. M.2010Single Drop Microextraction-Development, Applications and Future Trends. J. Chromatogr. A 121723262336
  77. 77. Lambropoulou DA, Albanis TA2007Liquid-Phase Micro-Extraction Techniques in Pesticide Residue Analysis. J. Biochem. Biophys. Meth. 70195228
  78. 78. Asensio-RamosM.Ravelo-PérezL. M.González-CurbeloM. Á.Hernández-BorgesJ.2011Liquid Phase Microextraction Applications in Food Analysis. J. Chromatogr. A. 121874157437
  79. 79. LiuH.DasguptaP. K.1996Analytical Chemistry in a Drop. Solvent Extraction in a Microdrop. Anal. Chem. 6818171821
  80. 80. Jeannot MA, Cantwell FF1996Solvent Microextraction into a Single Drop. Anal. Chem. 6822362240
  81. 81. XuL.BasheerC.LeeH. K.2007Developments in Single-Drop Microextraction. J. Chromatogr. A. 1152184192
  82. 82. PsillakisE.KalogerakisN.2002Developments in Single-Drop Microextraction. TrAC, Trends Anal. Chem. 215464
  83. 83. Jeannot MA, Cantwell FF1997Mass Transfer Characteristics of Solvent Extraction into a Single Drop at the Tip of a Syringe Needle. Anal. Chem. 69235239
  84. 84. Amvrazi EG, Tsiropoulos NG2009Chemometric Study and Optimization of Extraction Parameters in Single-Drop Microextraction for the Determination of Multiclass Pesticide Residues in Grapes and Apples by Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A. 121676307638
  85. 85. Amvrazi EG, Tsiropoulos NG2009Application of Single-Drop Microextraction Coupled with Gas Chromatography for the Determination of Multiclass Pesticides in Vegetables with Nitrogen Phosphorus and Electron Capture Detection. J. Chromatogr. A. 121627892797
  86. 86. Amvrazi EG, Papadi-Psyllou AT, Tsiropoulos NG2010Pesticide Enrichment Factors and Matrix Effects on the Determination of Multiclass Pesticides in Tomato Samples by Single-Drop Microextraction (SDME) Coupled with Gas Chromatography and Comparison Study between SDME and Acetone-Partition Extraction Procedure. Intl J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 90245259
  87. 87. MAFarajzadehDjozan. D.KhorramP.2011Development of a New Microextraction Method Based on a Dynamic Single Drop in a Narrow-Bore Tube: Application in Extraction and Preconcentration of Some Organic Pollutants in Well Water and Grape Juice Samples. Talanta 8511351142
  88. 88. ZhangM.HuangJ.WeiC.YuB.YangX.ChenX.2008Mixed Liquids for Single-Drop Microextraction of Organochlorine Pesticides in Vegetables. Talanta 74599604
  89. 89. ZhaoE.HanL.JiangS.WangQ.ZhouZ.2006Application of a Single-Drop Microextraction for the Analysis of Organophosphorus Pesticides in Juice. J. Chromatogr. A. 1114269273
  90. 90. XiaoQ.HuB.YuC.XiaL.JiangZ.2006Optimization of a Single-Drop Microextraction Procedure for the Determination of Organophosphorus Pesticides in Water and Fruit Juice with Gas Chromatography-Flame Photometric Detection. Talanta 69848855
  91. 91. Kin CM, Huat TG2009Comparison of Hs-Sdme with SPME and SPE for the Determination of Eight Organochlorine and Organophosphorus Pesticide Residues in Food Matrices. J. Chromatogr. Sci 47694699
  92. 92. ViñasP.Martínez-CastilloN.CampilloN.Hernández-CórdobaM.2010Liquid-Liquid Microextraction Methods Based on Ultrasound-Assisted Emulsification and Single-Drop Coupled to Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry for Determining Strobilurin and Oxazole Fungicides in Juices and Fruits. J. Chromatogr. A 121765696577
  93. 93. Pedersen-BjergaardS.RasmussenK. E.1999Liquid-Liquid-Liquid Microextraction for Sample Preparation of Biological Fluids Prior to Capillary Electrophoresis. Anal. Chem. 7126502656
  94. 94. Pedersen-BjergaardS.RasmussenK. E.GrønhaugHalvorsen. T.2000Liquid-Liquid Extraction Procedures for Sample Enrichment in Capillary Zone Electrophoresis. J. Chromatogr. A 90291105
  95. 95. Pedersen-BjergaardS.RasmussenK. E.2008Liquid-Phase Microextraction with Porous Hollow Fibers, a Miniaturized and Highly Flexible Format for Liquid-Liquid Extraction. J. Chromatogr. A 1184132142
  96. 96. HyötyläinenT.Riekkola-LM.2008Sorbent- and Liquid-Phase Microextraction Techniques and Membrane-Assisted Extraction in Combination with Gas Chromatographic Analysis: A Review. Anal. Chim. Acta 6142737
  97. 97. Lambropoulou DA, Konstantinou IK, Albanis TA2007Recent Developments in Headspace Microextraction Techniques for the Analysis of Environmental Contaminants in Different Matrices. J. Chromatogr. A 115270
  98. 98. Krylov VA, Krylov AV, Mosyagin PV, Matkivskaya YO2011Liquid-Phase Microextraction Preconcentration of Impurities. J. Anal. Chem. 66331350
  99. 99. Romero-GonzálezR.Pastor-MontoroE.Martínez-VidalJ. L.Garrido-FrenichA.2006Application of Hollow Fiber Supported Liquid Membrane Extraction to the Simultaneous Determination of Pesticide Residues in Vegetables by Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry. Rapid Comm. Mass Spect. 2027012708
  100. 100. HuY.WangY.HuY.LiG.2009Liquid-Liquid-Solid Microextraction Based on Membrane-Protected Molecularly Imprinted Polymer Fiber for Trace Analysis of Triazines in Complex Aqueous Samples. J. Chromatogr. A 121683048311
  101. 101. BarahonaF.GjelstadA.Pedersen-BjergaardS.RasmussenK. E.2010Hollow Fiber-Liquid-Phase Microextraction of Fungicides from Orange Juices. J. Chromatogr. A. 121719891994
  102. 102. BedendoG. C.CarasekE.2010Simultaneous Liquid-Liquid Microextraction and Polypropylene Microporous Membrane Solid-Phase Extraction of Organochlorine Pesticides in Water, Tomato and Strawberry Samples. J. Chromatogr. A. 1217713
  103. 103. LuthjeK.HyotylainenT.Rautiainen-RamaM.RiekkolaM. L.2005Pressurised Hot Water Extraction-Microporous Membrane Liquid-Liquid Extraction Coupled On-line with Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry in the Analysis of Pesticides in Grapes. Analyst 1305258
  104. 104. RezaeeM.AssadiY.Milani-RHosseini. M.AghaeeE.AhmadiF.BerijaniS.2006Determination of Organic Compounds in Water Using Dispersive Liquid-Liquid Microextraction. J. Chromatogr. A 111619
  105. 105. RezaeeM.YaminiY.FarajiM.2010Evolution of Dispersive Liquid-Liquid Microextraction Method. J. Chromatogr. A 121723422357
  106. 106. MatsadiqG.Hu-LH.Ren-BH.Zhou-WY.LiuL.ChengJ.2011Quantification of Multi-Residue Levels in Peach Juices, Pulps and Peels Using Dispersive Liquid-Liquid Microextraction Based on Floating Organic Droplet Coupled with Gas Chromatography-Electron Capture Detection. J. Chromatogr. B. 87921132118
  107. 107. ChunhongJ.XiaodanZ.LiC.MinH.PingzhongY.ErchengZ.2010Extraction of Organophosphorus Pesticides in Water and Juice Using Ultrasound-Assisted Emulsification-Mixroextraction. J. Sep. Sci. 33244250
  108. 108. HeL.LuoX.JiangX.QuL.2010A New 1,3-Dibutylimidazolium Hexafluorophosphate Ionic Liquid-Based Dispersive Liquid-Liquid Microextraction to Determine Organophosphorus Pesticides in Water and Fruit Samples by High-Performance Liquid Chromatography. J.Chromatogr. A. 121750135020
  109. 109. BidariA.GanjaliM. R.NorouziP.HosseiniM. R. M.AssadiY.2011Sample Preparation Method for the Analysis of Some Organophosphorus Pesticides Residues in Tomato by Ultrasound-Assisted Solvent Extraction Followed by Dispersive Liquid-Liquid Microextraction. Food Chem. 12618401844
  110. 110. Moreno-GonzálezD.Gámiz-GraciaL.García-CampañaA. M.Bosque-SendraJ. M.2011Use of Dispersive Liquid-Liquid Microextraction for the Determination of Carbamates in Juice Samples by Sweeping-Micellar Electrokinetic Chromatography. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 40013291338
  111. 111. ZhangS.LiC.SongS.FengT.WangC.WangZ.2010Application of Dispersive Liquid-Liquid Microextraction Combined with Sweeping Micellar Electrokinetic Chromatography for Trace Analysis of Six Carbamate Pesticides in Apples. Anal. Methods 25462
  112. 112. ZangX.WangJ.WangO.WangM.MaXiJ.etG.al2008Analysis of Captan, Folpet, and Captafol in Apples by Dispersive Liquid-Liquid Microextraction Combined with Gas Chromatography. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 392749754
  113. 113. WuQ.LiZ.WangC.WuC.WangW.WangZ.2011Dispersive Solid-Phase Extraction Clean-up Combined with Dispersive Liquid-Liquid Microextraction for the Determination of Neonicotinoid Insecticides in Vegetable Samples by High-Performance Liquid Chromatography. Food Anal. Methods 4559566
  114. 114. Ravelo-PérezL. M.Hernández-BorgesJ.Asensio-RamosM.Rodríguez-DelgadoM. Á.2009Ionic Liquid Based Dispersive Liquid-Liquid Microextraction for the Extraction of Pesticides from Bananas. J. Chromatogr. A 121673367345
  115. 115. Ravelo-PerezL. M.Hernandez-BorgesJ.Herrera-HerreraA. V.Angel-DelgadoRodriguez.M.2009Pesticide Extraction from Table Grapes and Plums Using Ionic Liquid Based Dispersive Liquid-Liquid Microextraction. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 39523872395
  116. 116. FuL.LiuX.HuJ.ZhaoX.WangH.WangX.2009Application of Dispersive Liquid-Liquid Microextraction for the Analysis of Triazophos and Carbaryl Pesticides in Water and Fruit Juice Samples. Anal. Chim. Acta 632289295
  117. 117. HuoX.LiQ.LinX.ChenX.BiK.2011Application of Dispersive Liquid-Liquid Microextraction for the Analysis of Six Fungicides in Fruit Samples by GC-ECD. Chromatographia 73313319
  118. 118. QiaoF.ZhangX.WangM.KangY.2010Rapid Extraction of Imidacloprid in Tomatoes by Ultrasonic Dispersion Liquid-Liquid Microextraction Coupled with LC Determination. Chromatographia 72331335
  119. 119. KawaguchiM.ItoR.SaitoK.NakazawaH.2006Novel Stir Bar Sorptive Extraction Methods for Environmental and Biomedical Analysis. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 40500508
  120. 120. PrietoA.BasauriO.RodilR.UsobiagaA.FernándezL. al.2010Stir-Bar Sorptive Extraction: A View on Method Optimisation, Novel Applications, Limitations and Potential Solutions. J. Chromatogr. A. 121726422666
  121. 121. LiuW.HuY.ZhaoJ.XuY.GuanY.2005Determination of Organophosphorus Pesticides in Cucumber and Potato by Stir Bar Sorptive Extraction. J. Chromatogr. A 109517
  122. 122. KendeA.CsizmaziaZ.RikkerT.AngyalV.TorkosK.2006Combination of Stir Bar Sorptive Extraction-Retention Time Locked Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry and Automated Mass Spectral Deconvolution for Pesticide Identification in Fruits and Vegetables. Microchem. J. 846369
  123. 123. SandraP.TienpontB.DavidF.2003Multi-Residue Screening of Pesticides in Vegetables, Fruits and Baby Food by Stir Bar Sorptive Extraction-Thermal Desorption-Capillary Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A. 1000299309
  124. 124. Juan-GarcíaA.PicóY.FontG.2005Capillary Electrophoresis for Analyzing Pesticides in Fruits and Vegetables Using Solid-Phase Extraction and Stir-Bar Sorptive Extraction. J. Chromatogr. A 1073229236
  125. 125. GuanW.WangY.XuF.GuanY.2008Poly(Phthalazine Ether Sulfone Ketone) as Novel Stationary Phase for Stir Bar Sorptive Extraction of Organochlorine Compounds and Organophosphorus Pesticides. J. Chromatogr. A 11772835
  126. 126. BlascoC.FontG.PicóY.2002Comparison of Microextraction Procedures to Determine Pesticides in Oranges by Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A 970201212
  127. 127. Abdel-RehimM.2010Recent Advances in Microextraction by Packed Sorbent for Bioanalysis. J. Chromatogr. A. 121725692580
  128. 128. AltunZ.Abdel-RehimM.2008Study of the Factors Affecting the Performance of Microextraction by Packed Sorbent (MEPS) using Liquid Scintillation Counter and Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry. Anal. Chim. Acta 630116123
  129. 129. Abdel-RehimM.2004New Trend in Sample Preparation: On-line Microextraction in Packed Syringe for Liquid and Gas Chromatography Applications: I. Determination of Local Anaesthetics in Human Plasma Samples Using Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. B 801317321
  130. 130. Abdel-RehimM.2011Microextraction by Packed Sorbent (MEPS): A Tutorial. Anal. Chim. Acta 701119128
  131. 131. BagheriH.AyaziZ.Es’haghiA.AghakhaniA.2012Reinforced Polydiphenylamine Nanocomposite for Microextraction in Packed Syringe of Various Pesticides. J. Chromatogr. A. 12221321
  132. 132. BagheriH.AyaziZ.AghakhaniA.AlipourN.2012Polypyrrole/Polyamide Electrospun-Based Sorbent for Microextraction in Packed Syringe of Organophosphorous Pesticides from Aquatic Samples. J. Sep. Sci. 35114120

Written By

Guan Huat Tan and Lukman Bola Abdulra'uf

Submitted: December 21st, 2011 Published: August 1st, 2012